"Explaining away"

[NorrinRadd]

In another thread here, now closed at OP request, one poster posted a frustrated one-line commentary on some of the preceding posts to the effect of "Still more explaining away!"

I completely agree that it is frustrating to see people "explaining away" what seems to be the obvious teaching of Scripture.

-- They explain away the gender equality in ministry implied in Acts 2:18 by saying those sorts of "inspired" utterances are completely distinct from preaching and teaching -- even though "prophecy" AND "teaching" both appear in all the same lists of "gifts" in the NT.

-- They explain away the fact that Priscilla taught Apollos by denying she taught with "authority" (in spite of the fact that she was correcting his incomplete message), or by asserting that it was ok because she was teaching him at her home, not in church, even though her home WAS the meeting place of the local church.

-- They explain away the explicit egalitarian teaching of Gal. 3:28 by saying that it applies only to the basic fact of one's "value" in Christ, even though the context of the chapter seems to be speaking pretty "wholistically" of the New Covenant, including its abolition of standard societal "strata."

-- They explain away the grammar, vocabulary, and context of Rom. 16:1 which indicate that Phoebe was a deaconness of the church at Cenchrea and patroness/protectoress/benefactoress of many, and was probably being commended as the courier (and thus the one who would teach/explain the contents) of the letter, by using other, contextually less likely words to translate the passage.

-- They explain away the equality taught in Eph. 5 by translating 5:22 in ways that obscure its grammatical and thematic dependence on 5:21, and by emphasizing the "body" of the section while downplaying the equality taught in its opening and closing -- 5:21 and 33.


Yep, frustrating when people "explain away" portions of Scripture.

 

[Nadiine]

-- They explain away the gender equality in ministry implied in Acts 2:18 by saying those sorts of "inspired" utterances are completely distinct from preaching and teaching -- even though "prophecy" AND "teaching" both appear in all the same lists of "gifts" in the NT.

-- They explain away the fact that Priscilla taught Apollos by denying she taught with "authority" (in spite of the fact that she was correcting his incomplete message), or by asserting that it was ok because she was teaching him at her home, not in church, even though her home WAS the meeting place of the local church.

Well you can spin this any way you want, however, you're flat out wrong on the "gender equality" allegation.

Was God being a nasty sexist by appointing ONLY male priests from the Tribe of Levi in the OT for thousands of years?
NO. If God can deny women positions in the OT, He can deny them in the NT. without being sexist.

Not giving a woman a certain position is NOT denying her equality with the other sex and it's a false assertion.
All humanity is equal in nature, but they are NOT all capable or gifted or called by God to perform every job & task.

God has set the husband over his wife (Gen. 3 curse from the fall), that isn't inequality, it's called Order.
Unless you want to claim inequality with the Godhead which also has order.

Whats just as frustrating as explaining away scripture is spinning scripture to support a position.

And using Priscilla there doesn't support Shepherding her own congregation - her and her husband both took Apollos aside - one could argue she was under Aquilla's authority in teaching, not her own authority.

24Now a Jew named Apollos, an Alexandrian by birth, an eloquent man, came to Ephesus; and he was mighty in the Scriptures.
25This man had been instructed in the way of the Lord; and being fervent in spirit, he was speaking and teaching accurately the things concerning Jesus, being acquainted only with the baptism of John;
26and he began to speak out boldly in the synagogue.
But when Priscilla and Aquila heard him, they took him aside and explained to him the way of God more accurately.

I have never said a woman cannot teach, I've only said they cannot head an entire congregation as Shepherd/Pastor - and esp. if her own husband is of that congregation. It is a seat/position of authority over a church (as leader)

It's more about leading her own husband, not being forbidden to teach any other male. She is only submissive to her own husband, not all men.

 

[GQ Chris]

Looks like someone Succeeded at explaining away- "explaining away"






I thought most people here were Conservatives

 

[Lisa0315]

Let me take a stab at this:

Norrin, You are under the illusion that not allowing a woman to pastor a church, i.e., be in authority over the flock, is somehow making the woman less or inferior. It is not.

Let's start from the beginning. Woman was not created subservient, but was cursed with it. By salvation, women are freed from this curse.

Having different roles does not mean that man is superior or that woman is inferior. It means taking the natural gifts that God has instilled in the sexes and using them to the glory of God.

Men are naturally hunters, defenders, and warriors. Women are naturally nurturers, defenders, and warriors. The two sexes are not to work against one another but in a natural union that compliments the other. Men defend the home from the outside. Women defend the home from the inside. Men go away to war. Women guard the hearth.

Look at the Proverbs 31 woman. She made her own money, investments, and her husband and children were very proud of her.

The Jewish woman was trained to defend the inheritance/home while the husband was away at war. She could as easily pick up arms to defend herself, children, and home as her husband could put on armor and go to war. This is a good example of how the roles are different but complimentary and equal.

The man is to love his wife with a sacrificial love similar to the way Jesus gave His life for the Church. The wife is to love her husband with a similar love, but free to support, nurture, and guide the home. She does not have to single-handedly confront the world because her husband is the buffer between the world and the family.

Christian men who treat their wives with disrespect are sinning. Women who treat their husbands with disrespect are also sinning.

Ultimately, there arise occasions when a tough decision has to be made. If a husband and a wife disagree, then, prayer should bring them into agreement. Regardless, Christ is head of the Church, and man is head of the woman. These are not abusive relationships. It is a simple matter of authority and necessary leadership. If you say that woman should not accept her husband as the head of the home, then, you are also saying that we should not accept the authority of Christ over the Church.

Lisa

 

[MrJim]

One person's "exegesis" is another's "explaining away"

 

[NorrinRadd]

One person's "exegesis" is another's "explaining away"

This is, to use a Biblically appropriate term, the "crux" of the matter -- or at least one beam of it.

It is almost always necessary to "explain away" some passages of Scripture in order to accept others. That's why, e.g., there are differences between "Charismatics" and "Pentecostals"; they differ on what to "explain away."

 

[Nadiine]

This is, to use a Biblically appropriate term, the "crux" of the matter -- or at least one beam of it.

It is almost always necessary to "explain away" some passages of Scripture in order to accept others. That's why, e.g., there are differences between "Charismatics" and "Pentecostals"; they differ on what to "explain away."

And that leads to the bottom line - in the end, somebody is ultimately right and somebody is ultimately wrong (or both are wrong).

The problem is that what we believe can harm us and/or others.
My MO. is to take the path of least harm or severity on a questionable or obvious doctrine.

In this case, there's no reason why you can't have that woman do "guest speaking" often on a Sunday night or Wed. nite, etc. She can be the asst. Pastor - helping council & filling in the for the Pastor when he's away. That way she's still shielded under the leader's authority as we see with Priscilla & Aquilla who were exampled as a team.

There are ways around this to use her mightily and heavily than to have her lead the congregation as their spiritual provider.
This is my main point with this. The demanding that they get the top billing is my issue and I find it out of step with scripture.

 

[NorrinRadd]

Lisa -- That's all very interesting, but very much speculative opinion.

I may not be as "conservative" as some would like (though I do qualify in terms of the FSGs, if barely); however, I am "Fundy" enough to be almost a Bibliolator. The arguments about what is "fair" or "natural" don't have much impact on me. I prefer arguments from Scripture. Admittedly those do tend to break down over irreconcilable differences regarding translation and hermeneutics, but I still find them more "solid" than arguments from "nature."

 

[NorrinRadd]

And that leads to the bottom line - in the end, somebody is ultimately right and somebody is ultimately wrong (or both are wrong).

The problem is that what we believe can harm us and/or others.
My MO. is to take the path of least harm or severity on a questionable or obvious doctrine.

You do realize, of course, that it is completely a matter of *opinion* as to which path would be less severe or harmful, and which viewpoint is more questionable vs. most obvious, right?

In this case, there's no reason why you can't have that woman do "guest speaking" often on a Sunday night or Wed. nite, etc. She can be the asst. Pastor - helping council & filling in the for the Pastor when he's away. That way she's still shielded under the leader's authority as we see with Priscilla & Aquilla who were exampled as a team.

There are ways around this to use her mightily and heavily than to have her lead the congregation as their spiritual provider.
This is my main point with this. The demanding that they get the top billing is my issue and I find it out of step with scripture.

As I've said, anyone who is "demanding" ANY sort of "billing" is already self-disqualified from ANY sort of ministry.

 

[Nadiine]

You do realize, of course, that it is completely a matter of *opinion* as to which path would be less severe or harmful, and which viewpoint is more questionable vs. most obvious, right?

Not necessarily -- but again, that also leads to someone being right and wrong.

How harmful is it to place a female as any other position (incl. teaching the congregation in a speaking capacity) in a church that just isn't the seat of the Pastor? Problem solved I would think.

If someone is that adamant to put a female into a teaching position over the church, they'll do it, but imho, this is alot less aggressive and won't offend as many. (altho you'de probly have fallout of some sort & possibly a church split - it's just less likely than naming the female as Pastor).

As I've said, anyone who is "demanding" ANY sort of "billing" is already self-disqualified from ANY sort of ministry.

I agree, but that's what's happening - it's going on in the Catholic church where women are demanding to be Priests of parishes.

I know of 1 woman who just took it upon herself to take the Priesthood.

Sorry, this is rebellion and it's a wrong spirit to start with.

http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_kmtpi/is_200608/ai_n16614112

 

[Nadiine]

Lisa -- That's all very interesting, but very much speculative opinion.

I may not be as "conservative" as some would like (though I do qualify in terms of the FSGs, if barely); however, I am "Fundy" enough to be almost a Bibliolator. The arguments about what is "fair" or "natural" don't have much impact on me. I prefer arguments from Scripture. Admittedly those do tend to break down over irreconcilable differences regarding translation and hermeneutics, but I still find them more "solid" than arguments from "nature."

Here's the bottom line in my view ---

If [and since] God gives the position of leadership & authority of the home to the male , I HARDLY see how God is handing over authority of His congregation to the woman in her authority over her own husband, and all else.
She doesn't even get that in her own home!

So I don't see it - God is a God of order, and that order even exists in the Godhead as the Son is submissive to the Father (who SENT Him)....
If there is order there, then it most certainly is designed for us down here and we're held accountable for our God-given roles.

1 Corinthians 11:3
But I want you to understand that Christ is the head of every man,
and the man is the head of a woman, and God is the head of Christ.

 

[NorrinRadd]

Here's the bottom line in my view ---

If [and since] God gives the position of leadership & authority of the home to the male , I HARDLY see how God is handing over authority of His congregation to the woman in her authority over her own husband, and all else.
She doesn't even get that in her own home!

Since the early Church often met in homes and to some extent patterned church structure over home structure, I tend to agree that *IF* it is "normative" for the man to be THE leader of the home, the same would hold in the church.

However, I see the NT teaching equality, *mutual* submission, and collegial leadership in both home and church.

So I don't see it - God is a God of order,...

We often hear that, and I guess I mostly believe it. OTOH, His "order" is not always crystal clear, even (or maybe especially) in what He reveals in Scripture.

and that order even exists in the Godhead as the Son is submissive to the Father (who SENT Him)....
If there is order there, then it most certainly is designed for us down here and we're held accountable for our God-given roles.

1 Corinthians 11:3
But I want you to understand that Christ is the head of every man,
and the man is the head of a woman, and God is the head of Christ.

Interesting selection. It touches upon something that has become a significant concern in the hierarchalist/egalitarian debates. In the estimation of some scholars, some hierachalists have in their zeal to support their position revived an ancient heresy: the "eternal subjection" of the Son.

Personally, I'm presently inclined to think that "heresy" is too strong a term, because the passage you cite *could* legitimately support your view. Contextually, I think it could just as well refer to "procession" as to "position." If it *is* intended to indicate "eternal subjection" of the Son, it seems to run counter to passages such as Phil. 2:7, which indicates that the "subjection" of Jesus occurred only during His Incarnation, and to the Genesis account of the creation of Man, where it appears the Members of the Godhead made a collegial, coequal decision to create Man.

As I say, the matter is not crystal-clear.

 

[MrJim]

Gakk~all this women preacher talk; this morning our resident lay pastor, also an elder, also a "she", is preaching~preacher had major surgery and is recovering nicely. She's a very hard working lady with her job, raising the family, being a wife and mom, and then busts her can in the church working all sorts of things.

...but I still won't be there when she's in the pulpit. Part of me feels guilty about not supporting her for all she does but the other side says "this ain't right dude" so I just avoid the situation by doing or going somewhere else..

Ours is a rather conservative congregation in a liberal denomination~even so, still some things about it makes me uncomfortable, guess that's why I'm not a member even after four years of attending

 

[Nadiine]

Since the early Church often met in homes and to some extent patterned church structure over home structure, I tend to agree that *IF* it is "normative" for the man to be THE leader of the home, the same would hold in the church.

However, I see the NT teaching equality, *mutual* submission, and collegial leadership in both home and church.

Mutual submission doesn't remove the male's headship tho. God never said "there is no head in the home becuz both mutually submit". He placed it in the man's lap saying he is the head of the wife. It makes the male responsible for his wife, she is created as the "weaker vessel" - FOR the man. She's designed for him as a help mate.
That is how the home is run. He is her covering.

God gives the final authority to the MALE, and holds the male responsible for her.
I think this mite also be why sin comes thru ADAM when Eve actually ate the fruit and took the bait Satan gave her?
Eve actually sinned first. (I know that's a loaded example for alot of other speculative alternatives) lol

We often hear that, and I guess I mostly believe it. OTOH, His "order" is not always crystal clear, even (or maybe especially) in what He reveals in Scripture.

It's not crystal clear when we want to redefine terms and definitions.
This seems to be a rampant problem in our postmodern wisdom.

Interesting selection. It touches upon something that has become a significant concern in the hierarchalist/egalitarian debates. In the estimation of some scholars, some hierachalists have in their zeal to support their position revived an ancient heresy: the "eternal subjection" of the Son.

Personally, I'm presently inclined to think that "heresy" is too strong a term, because the passage you cite *could* legitimately support your view. Contextually, I think it could just as well refer to "procession" as to "position." If it *is* intended to indicate "eternal subjection" of the Son, it seems to run counter to passages such as Phil. 2:7, which indicates that the "subjection" of Jesus occurred only during His Incarnation, and to the Genesis account of the creation of Man, where it appears the Members of the Godhead made a collegial, coequal decision to create Man.

As I say, the matter is not crystal-clear

I think it is crystal clear - again, the bible is becoming nothing but a book of speculative relativism anymore as we grow in our "wisdom & knowledge" of truth.
People are studying it to a literal death of all meaning. We're supposed to be guided by the Holy Spirit, not self will and secular modernism - according to custom & trends of the current day.

Nothing is CLEAR in it anymore, have you noticed that? Why is that?
We can't even know anything simple out of the bible these days as Christians.
Nothing means the same thing anymore, it's turned to "I see it this way" & "I see it that way"... &
"this COULD mean _________ _____ __________"

Our Bible does mean something and it does teach a clear message (many clear, simple messages) in its fullness & language. We're turning it into a speculative book of suggestion according to relativism today as I see it.
And I think it's becoming dangerous becuz God isn't a God of confusion, but look at the confusion we're creating over doctrine as time goes on.

Do I think we should drop study and stay ignorant? Not at all, but pretty soon adultery will be redefined & we'll all be questioning what adultery even means next.
Love has already been altered to mean something else in our PC era.

You might call that ignorning the post point you made becuz it's more of a rant or observation that doesn't make a proper rebuttal, but I didn't want to rebut it, I just wanted to make the observation of what I see happening anymore to our Bible.

 

[MrJim]

Some favorite explain-aways...

1Cor11 ~ women's headcoverings (vs. "just for that time/hair is covering/temple prostitues/etc)
Matt 5 ~ love enemies (vs. killing them)

...again, one person's exegesis is another's explain-away

 

[Nadiine]

Some favorite explain-aways...

1Cor11 ~ women's headcoverings (vs. "just for that time/hair is covering/temple prostitues/etc)
Matt 5 ~ love enemies (vs. killing them)

...again, one person's exegesis is another's explain-away

Christians are supposed to have the Holy Spirit - and God is not the author of confusion.

So what's the problem in why we can't even agree on simple doctrines let alone any complex?

And, what IS simple??? It would appear there is no simple doctrine that exists whatsoever, no basics to agree on....
It's about no wonder the world doesn't view us as relevant anymore - by all rights, they shouldn't.

 

[MrJim]

Christians are supposed to have the Holy Spirit - and God is not the author of confusion.

So what's the problem in why we can't even agree on simple doctrines let alone any complex?

And, what IS simple??? It would appear there is no simple doctrine that exists whatsoever, no basics to agree on....
It's about no wonder the world doesn't view us as relevant anymore - by all rights, they shouldn't.

I learned from my mennonite mentors that Christianity is more about action than creed. Comparing the Old Covenant (particularly as regarding the Law) with the New Coventant (where there is no Law~set of absolute creedal rules to follow) shows that it is a faith not of doctrinal battles but of servanthood and sweat and tears and blood. Until that is grasped it'll continue to be what it is, an act of desperation.

 

[GQ Chris]

Nothingis CLEAR in it anymore, have you noticed that? Why is that?
We can't even know anything simple out of the bible these days as Christians.
Nothing means the same thing anymore, it's turned to "I see it this way" & "I see it that way"... &
"this COULD mean _________ _____ __________"

Our Bible does mean something and it does teach a clear message (many clear, simple messages) in its fullness & language. We're turning it into a speculative book of suggestion according to relativism today as I see it.
And I think it's becoming dangerous becuz God isn't a God of confusion, but look at the confusion we're creating over doctrine as time goes on.

Do I think we should drop study and stay ignorant? Not at all, but pretty soon adultery will be redefined & we'll all be questioning what adultery even means next.
Love has already been altered to mean something else in our PC era.

You might call that ignorning the post point you made becuz it's more of a rant or observation that doesn't make a proper rebuttal, but I didn't want to rebut it, I just wanted to make the observation of what I see happening anymore to our Bible.

You are so right on the money... again its all "explaining away" theology at its finest

 

[Nadiine]

You are so right on the money... again its all "explaining away" theology at its finest

Well, I"m not against theology or different viewpoints - but what I see happening is, truth is taking a back seat to "I can't know what's true" anymore.

The result is dangerous as I see it, no one is able to decide how to operate a church, how to live, what pleases God & what doesn't.
& no wonder we see these younger generations in the church completely clueless to doctrine & truth.
Their elders are essentially teaching them relativism & undecidedness in most doctrines.

God help the church 10-20 years from now while it tries to establish anything as truth - & it's no wonder we do have so many denominations.

It's beyond my capacity to hope to fix it - heavy prayer & God's miraculous hand is the only answer.
All I can say is what I"m seeing happen in our day fits right in with end time prophecy when truth is lost -
if you can't know what's true, you've lost the compass to know what's false, so people start accepting the lies much easier.

*One last thought, if the Bible was supposed to be so relative, I have to wonder why God even bothered getting it to us & having them write anything for our knowledge.
It's all up for grabs & no one can figure it out.

 

[MrJim]

Well, I"m not against theology or different viewpoints - but what I see happening is, truth is taking a back seat to "I can't know what's true" anymore.

The result is dangerous as I see it, no one is able to decide how to operate a church, how to live, what pleases God & what doesn't.
& no wonder we see these younger generations in the church completely clueless to doctrine & truth.
Their elders are essentially teaching them relativism & undecidedness in most doctrines.

God help the church 10-20 years from now while it tries to establish anything as truth - & it's no wonder we do have so many denominations.

It's beyond my capacity to hope to fix it - heavy prayer & God's miraculous hand is the only answer.
All I can say is what I"m seeing happen in our day fits right in with end time prophecy when truth is lost -
if you can't know what's true, you've lost the compass to know what's false, so people start accepting the lies much easier.

*One last thought, if the Bible was supposed to be so relative, I have to wonder why God even bothered getting it to us & having them write anything for our knowledge.
It's all up for grabs & no one can figure it out.

My Catholic/Orthodox friends say that this is the fruit of Sola Scriptura~I tend to believe they're right..